W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > November 2008

Object vs fact <-- Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened

From: Paul Vincent <pvincent@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:28:55 -0800
Message-ID: <A92210407BA7004199621BE5F0AC5D8B1B74D7@NA-PA-VBE04.na.tibco.com>
To: "Gary Hallmark" <gary.hallmark@oracle.com>, <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Cc: "Christian de Sainte Marie" <csma@ilog.fr>, "Patrick Albert" <palbert@ilog.fr>, "Dave Reynolds" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "Adrian Paschke" <Adrian.Paschke@gmx.de>, "Axel Polleres" <axel.polleres@deri.org>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

My interpretation of Gary's position is:

"PRD (and possibly RIF core) must include (non normative) definitions
for mappings from common XSD, POJO, and possibly RDBMS object and data
structures and types to fact models and vice versa." 

In fact, just like the BLD team have done for OWL and RDF...

Paul Vincent
TIBCO | Business Optimization | Business Rules & CEP
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Hallmark [mailto:gary.hallmark@oracle.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2008 07:35
> To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
> Cc: Christian de Sainte Marie; Paul Vincent; Patrick Albert; Dave
> Reynolds; Boley, Harold; Adrian Paschke; Axel Polleres; RIF WG
> Subject: Re: Reference vs import <-- RIF Core shortened
> 
> My view is that the phrase "external object model" is a misleading .
It
> is more accurate to think of importing an XML document or a java
object
> graph.  Import defines a mapping between the external syntax and the
RIF
> syntax.  With a standard mapping and a standard RIF semantics you get
a
> standard semantics for importing the external syntax.  We can't map
> everything from an XML document or a java object graph into Core but
at
> least we can map objects with slots, membership, and subclass.
> 
> Put another way: if you want to exchange rules using a fancy external
> data model, you need to figure out how to map it to your RIF dialect
in
> a standard way.
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > ok. But I am trying to make this more concrete so that we'll
understand.
> > I would like things to be expressed in the context of RIF-Core and
of
> the
> > concrete problem for which Gary was seeking a solution.
> >
> > I don't see how Java objects and external schemas relate to allowing
#
> and ##
> > in RIF-Core facts.  I would like to see a clarification from you on
that
> issue
> > and Gary's view.
> >
> > michael
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:22:50 +0100
> > Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Paul Vincent wrote:
> >>
> >>> Christian's comment is simply (?) that RIF needs to play well
> alongside
> >>> externally-defined fact definitions (for example external Java
object
> >>> models used to define production rules in BREs).
> >>>
> >> Thanx for translating from the csma-ese, Paul :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>> Maybe the qu is whether it is compulsory that all relevant facts
and
> >>> class relationships need to be represented in RIF for RIF rules to
be
> >>> defined against them?
> >>>
> >> It is compulsory that they need be representable; so, yes, they
could
> be represented.
> >>
> >> But it is not compulsory that they be represented, as far as I
> understand.
> >>
> >> That is, by the way, what I understand Gary says in his reply to
you
> [1], and this is, anyway, what I have been trying to say all along.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Or have I missed the point (again)? :)
> >>>
> >> I do not think so.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Christian
> >>
> >> [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Nov/0127.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 10:29:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:58 GMT